Movie theater shooting

[darthtang aw]

Yea, I'm sure those people killed and injured in that Colorado movie theater would still be dead and hurt today if he'd walked into the theater with a keg and a bong.  Wait a minute, that's what we used to do at rock concerts in the 70's.  DANG!  I'M DEAD AND DIDN'T KNOW IT!
Worst spin ever.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/160#post_3484193
I would be more worried about him owning a .308 caliber weapon over a .223 caliber weapon. If you break it down by numbers, his kill ration sucked with the amount of ammunition he had. Why? Because he used an assault caliber weapon. had he used a .45 caliber pistol, and a .308 rifle he would have killed far more people. During the "assault" weapon ban, assault weapons were used just as much in crimes as when the ban was not in effect. Look up the numbers. They neither dropped nor rose.
So I ask you, with all your security...why do you own a gun for self protection?
The majority of home break-ins, no firearms are used. If they are, it's primarily a hand gun. Having a hand gun or shot gun, and the aadvantage of knowing where the best coverage iand position in my home to counter an attack, someon could break in with a .45 or .308, and I'd still have the upper hand. For someone that seems to be a gun expert, you don't appear to uderstand ractical strategies when facing a home break-ins, Seriously? So you're saying shooting a bolt-action .308 would have more kills that a ,223 shooting 30 rounds in ,ess than a minute. A .308 would do more damage, but 90% of his victims could've escaped before he could hit them. You're saying he could've still wounded 59 people that so far haven't died?.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/160#post_3484197
Worst spin ever.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/
Your alcohol, drug, and automobile analogies are getting old. It's called simple math. How many MILLIONS of indiviiduals drink alcohol or drive a car in comparison to te number of individuals shoot a gun? Of course the statistics will be higher/ How often do you shoot your guns - once a month, one every 6 months, once a year? I haven't taken my shotgun out to shoot in over 5 years. I had a six pack playing hol 'em poker Saturday night. Binge drinking on college campuses has been on the rise the lst several years. Nice try. Give it another spin.

 

[darthtang aw]

The majority  of home break-ins, no firearms are used.  If they are, it's primarily a hand gun.  Having a hand gun or shot gun, and the aadvantage of knowing where the best coverage iand position in my home to counter an attack, someon  could break in with a .45 or .308, and I'd still have the upper hand.  For someone that seems to be a gun expert, you don't appear to uderstand ractical strategies when facing a home break-ins,   Seriously?  So you're saying shooting a bolt-action .308 would have more kills that a ,223 shooting 30 rounds in ,ess than a minute.  A .308 would do more damage, but 90% of his victims could've escaped before he could hit them.  You're saying he could've still wounded 59 people that so far haven't died?.
To use your same verbage, the majority of gun involved crime involves a handgun, so a conceal carry would in most case (just like your home invasion) be a solid defense. Your argument has been it would not be a defense and is useless. The odds of someone storming your home with a 100 round drum on an AR, is just as rare as it being used in a movie theater.
And yes, had the guy started with a .45 caliber handgun and .308, he would have killed far more people.
Firing an AR with a 100 round drum in a rapid fashion raises the barrel considerably each shot and is out of control. A bolt action rifle and a handgun of large caliber is far more deadly and usually is fatal. For someone that has fired guns before, you sure do not understand the logistics of how a weapon reacts when fired. There is a reason our military rarely ever uses a fully auto option. 3 burst is usually the maximum and most times it is single shot semi. Because constantly pulling the trigger removes your aim. Instead of 12 dead...the number of deaths would be higher. Hell a pump action shotgun loaded with slugs, would most likely kill two people with one shot at that range. maybe we should ban shotguns...they are far more deadly of a weapon than a .223 caliber rifle.

 

[darthtang aw]

Your alcohol, drug, and automobile analogies are getting old.  It's called simple math.  How many  MILLIONS of indiviiduals drink alcohol or drive a car in comparison to te number of individuals shoot a gun?  Of course the statistics will be higher/  How often do you shoot your guns - once a month, one every 6 months, once a year?  I haven't taken my shotgun out to shoot in over 5 years.  I had a six pack playing hol 'em poker Saturday night.  Binge drinking on college campuses has been on the rise the lst several years.  Nice try.  Give it another spin.
So....it isn't about saving lives? You don't mind the 75,000 dead each year from alcohol because on average it isn't that bad. But the gun deaths per year is outrageous...because far more people drink than own guns.
Roughly 25% of adults in this country own guns. so Roughly 75 Million adults own fire arms. Roughly there are 14,000 homicides a year. And I am increasing that figure just for posterity.
67% of Adults in the U.S. drink alcohol. So for the alcohol related deaths to be lower there would only have to be 42,000 alcohol related deaths a year. What was the number in that story I posted?
Oh yeah, even your percentage argument doesn't add up..............

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/160#post_3484201
To use your same verbage, the majority of gun involved crime involves a handgun, so a conceal carry would in most case (just like your home invasion) be a solid defense. Your argument has been it would not be a defense and is useless. The odds of someone storming your home with a 100 round drum on an AR, is just as rare as it being used in a movie theater.
And yes, had the guy started with a .45 caliber handgun and .308, he would have killed far more people.
Firing an AR with a 100 round drum in a rapid fashion raises the barrel considerably each shot and is out of control. A bolt action rifle and a handgun of large caliber is far more deadly and usually is fatal. For someone that has fired guns before, you sure do not understand the logistics of how a weapon reacts when fired. There is a reason our military rarely ever uses a fully auto option. 3 burst is usually the maximum and most times it is single shot semi. Because constantly pulling the trigger removes your aim. Instead of 12 dead...the number of deaths would be higher. Hell a pump action shotgun loaded with slugs, would most likely kill two people with one shot at that range. maybe we should ban shotguns...they are far more deadly of a weapon than a .223 caliber rifle.
I've shot an AR in both auto and semi-auto mode. You will get up to a 10 degree rise in auto mode, and less than 3 - 5 degree in semi-auto mode depending on how fast you pull the trigger. Shooting a semi-auto in this situation was more effective because he was firing in a dark theatre with tear gas all around. Spraying the room with a 100-round wepaon, regardless of the accuracy, would be

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/160#post_3484205
I've shot an AR in both auto and semi-auto mode. You will get up to a 10 degree rise in auto mode, and less than 3 - 5 degree in semi-auto mode depending on how fast you pull the trigger. Shooting a semi-auto in this situation was more effective because he was firing in a dark theatre with tear gas all around. Spraying the room with a 100-round wepaon, regardless of the accuracy, would be much more effective, than using a bolt action weapon because you would have the tendency to want to aim that weapon off your shoulder, as opposed to just shooting off the hip with the AR.

 

[darthtang aw]

Depends on what the goal was. If it was mass death, the bolt action higher caliber rifler or pump action shotgun with slugs would create the most deaths. Even with less shots. if it was to create chaos and disorder with some casualties and multiple wounded...then I would chose the ar.

 

[bang guy]

I'm going to agree with Bionic in this case.

 

[travelerjp98]

Using information from FBI statistics, here are some numbers/information I found on gun laws and murder by gun, robberies by gun, and assaults by gun (by people using a gun, I mean.)
So, the state with the strictest gun laws is considered to be California.
Total deaths by people using a gun in CA per year was 3.37 per 100,000
Total robberies by people using a gun in CA per year was 48.44 per 100,000
Total assaults by people using a gun in CA per year was 45.45 per 100,000
The state that is considered to have the loosest gun laws is Vermont.
Total deaths by people using a gun in VT per year was .32 per 100,000
Total robberies by people using a gun in VT per year was 2.09 per 100,000
Total assaults by people using a gun in VT per years was 7.87 per 100,000
Discuss.

 

[bang guy]

The California coast is a bowl of granola.

 

[mantisman51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by travelerjp98 http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/180#post_3484216
Using information from FBI statistics, here are some numbers/information I found on gun laws and murder by gun, robberies by gun, and assaults by gun (by people using a gun, I mean.)
So, the state with the strictest gun laws is considered to be California.
Total deaths by people using a gun in CA per year was 3.37 per 100,000
Total robberies by people using a gun in CA per year was 48.44 per 100,000
Total assaults by people using a gun in CA per year was 45.45 per 100,000
The state that is considered to have the loosest gun laws is Vermont.
Total deaths by people using a gun in VT per year was .32 per 100,000
Total robberies by people using a gun in VT per year was 2.09 per 100,000
Total assaults by people using a gun in VT per years was 7.87 per 100,000
Discuss.
WAS Vermont. We have had the right to carry any way we want w/o a permit or license for almost 2 years.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/160#post_3484192
Those items can't be used to kill multiple people in a matter of minutes. The analogy is pointless. So just because no one's used that wepaon for a crime means it will never happen? So the logic of the gun advocates is as long as no one has committed multiple crimes with assault weapons or cannons like this .50 caliber, you can justify the continuation of selling them. So when the next carnage occurs, we can just shrug our shoulders, wave our motto "guns don't kill people, people kill people.", and tell the victims families "sucks that your loved one dies. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time." But hey, you can still buy your 10 AK-47's "just because" and stick them in a closet shooting them once ecery 6 months just in case you need to revolt against our government when they do something you don't agree with. Let me know if you have the same sentiments if the next assault happens to someone you love. Maybe you can bury them with one of your multiple AK-47's. When the Obama Administration comes and takes all your guns, you can dig it up and "pry it from their cold dead hands."
I'll gladly take my chances with having AR's and AK's in the hands of citizens rather than give up my rights to the government. Unless the 2nd amendment is altered the government has no authority to ban semi autos.
Gun sales in Colorado are up 41% since Thursday. I am going to try to sell off the AR and the Glock in the feeding frenzy. 3 months from now there will be a bunch of AR's up for sale cheap once people realize there aren't going to be any new bans passed because of this.

 

[jerth6932]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerth6932 http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/140#post_3484161
There you go again with a lash out.......
Bioniclown..... Your "question", is what we are saying, CRIMINALS CAN GET GUNS ILLEGALLY, which ...ummm.... that was......
Where have we condoned an illegal transaction? Our point is that making laws to stop guns doesn't affect the criminals who, as in your own question, get them anyways!
I really do hope you are high, because if you are really this dumb..... please do us all the favor and stay away from guns...... Oops I "popped".
AND YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER ANYONE ELSE'S QUESTIONS..............
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/160#post_3484194
Yea, I'm sure those people killed and injured in that Colorado movie theater would still be dead and hurt today if he'd walked into the theater with a keg and a bong. Wait a minute, that's what we used to do at rock concerts in the 70's. DANG! I'M DEAD AND DIDN'T KNOW IT!
Dang, did I call it or what?

 

[snakeblitz33]

Bionic, When your significant other is taken from you by a drunk driver, and only the driver lives to tell about it... then tell me that alcohol doesn't kill. Tell me it doesn't when your son or daughter drinks so much that they poison themselves and have to get their stomach pumped or else they would die.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/180#post_3484285
Bionic, When your significant other is taken from you by a drunk driver, and only the driver lives to tell about it... then tell me that alcohol doesn't kill. Tell me it doesn't when your son or daughter drinks so much that they poison themselves and have to get their stomach pumped or else they would die.
Alcohol has killed more people than is ever realized, not just drunk drivers but health is affected, and many, many times the nut with a gun was drunk.. It destroys families and causes accidents, from driving drunk to just faslling down. Most domestic disputes occur when alcohol is involved. Yet the government allows it because people in majority want to use it....the government tried to ban it once upon a time...who had the alcohol then...the lawbreakers.... The people rebelled because they wanted it. This is a country where majority rules.
That stands for the desire for guns as well. The majority of people want the right to bear arms to be left alone as a constitutional right. This is a country where majority rules and we vote in the folks that are for it or against it.
We are not a communist country where the Government dictates what is best for the people. Everytime a law is made to control the people on what they are allowed or not allowed to do, you get a little closer to the government being in control instead of people using thier brains to know right from wrong.
So here we have in our country, some looneytoons who use guns to kill..... and your answer to that problem is to again give more power to the government to control our lives. 2% of our society are crazy and you want the other 98% of the people to be placed under control because of them. Often illegal guns were used in the first place and sometimes legal ones. The crazy people will still be able to get the illegal guns, and those who can't will use knives, wire, nylon stockings or rocks to do their dirty work.
The truth is the crazy folks will still be out there, and the "normal" nobody knew there was a problem ones who snap will also still be there too. Taking away the right to have a gun will not cure the crazy folks, nor stop them. Do you realize that any person can go to the local library or get online and learn how to make a bomb....they can kill hundreds in a moment that way....and they don't have to die doing it or be detected unless they have a death wish.
Oh my goodness, I just remembered. When I worked for metra railroad right after the 911 attack, we had a big manditory class in Chicago. It was supposed to teach us what to look for if someone left a bomb on the train...the guy showed us how bombs were made, and which ones did the most damage. A silly Coke bottle bomb like kids made in school for fun, can be made deadly by taping nails to the bottle..he showed us how pipe bombs were made and how to make a dead mans switch. I was a little freaked out because in my opinion...any disgruntled emplyee of Metra now knew where to put the bomb...because they now know where we would look for it, and how to make one to do the most damage.
We need to concentrate our preventive measures on the unstable, and not on the weapons they could use.

 

[mantisman51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/180#post_3484217
The California coast is a bowl of granola.
http://www.massgunlawreform.com/evidence.html
We don't have to speculate what would happen. Here's what happened in the Massachusetts experiment in gun control. Violent crime and home invasions have sky-rocketed. Actual children, parents, siblings and grandparents slaughtered BECAUSE of the gun ban. I don't know why Europe has such a lower murder rate than we do, but it's not guns. Swiss folks have full-auto rifles and even mortars and mines in their homes; it's part of their civilian soldier force. Yet the Swiss have remarkably lower gun crime. In Britain and Australia after their gun bans, gun crime went from very little to all-time historically high-but still a fraction of our gun crime. I think it is because we are a gun society and always have been. I think the Federal "official" number of 25% gun owners is stupid low. The NRA says it is closer to 50% of households with a firearm and from my experience that is a lot closer and even maybe low-I know liberal democrats in Kalifornia that have AK's hidden in their closets. And the "official" number of guns is 300 million, I also think is waaaaayyyyy underestimated. And since Obama was elected, there have been 5-6 million MORE firearms a year added. We are a gun culture. It's why the democrats lost the House and Senate in 94 and why even Obama has said he doesn't want more gun control laws when we all know he does. Banning guns will do nothing more than drive more guns into the shadows and make our society much more dangerous-and to what end? Mexico has also been a gun culture traditionally and all their gun ban did was make crime explode like a hydrogen bomb. What has happened in Mexico would, to a certain extent, happen here.

 

[beth]

From what I have read, it does not seem like this incident is going to result in a push for more controls on citizen arms. Obama would have to be suicidal to push that when the election is only a few months away.
And, bionicarm, I don't know if the victims' families would in unison be pro-gun restrictions after this happened. If I were a family member, I'd be inclined to wish that everyone had been armed in the theater to take the nutjob down before he killed and wounded so many. Now, that may be an emotional reaction and not a logical one, but that is how I'd feel.
I believe more and more that Holmes has a serious mental disease that went undetected and untreated. Now, maybe everyone who is not acting "normal" should be tossed in mental hospitals and the key thrown away like it used to be not so long ago? Would that be an appropriate solution to avoiding these mass homicide events? At least the oppression of the mentally ill would be less intrusive then oppressing the whole society with more and more restrictions on guns.
Is it so wrong to just punish or confine the guilty rather then diminishing our constitutional freedoms?

 

[mantisman51]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/batman_fiend_visited_hookers_before_crs5MSLNJth7n0L1RfhsOI
So he used his government grants to buy guns and ammo and to solicit prostitutes. I don't know why CU didn't just give him a PhD. Sounds like most professors I had at BSU.

 

[mantisman51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/160#post_3484170
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/boehner-says-he-agrees-with-obama-no-new-gun-control/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo#.UA70DvVFnIU
Obama is thinking much more clearly on this than most liberals. Now if he would denounce the U.N. gun grab, I'd feel a lot better about him getting re-elected.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/obama-talks-limiting-some-gun-use-in-wake-colorado-massacre/
First the teleprompter told him to say no new gun laws and not to politicize the situation. Now the teleprompter is telling him to say he is for more gun control. After the teleprompter sees the polls next week, it'll tell him to say his words were misconstrued and that he is NOT for more gun control. Maybe he should try a Samsung since that Sony unit changes his mind too much.